The Life Coach: Time To Beef Up A Chequered Profession?

I see both opportunity and pitfall in the profession of coaching, particularly as it applies to the "Life Coach" variety. On one hand, a life coach has the potential to guide a client in a very specific, forward moving, pragmatic approach. There is focus, there is a clearly defined issue, goal timetable, and an emphasis on taking action.

But in the same way that psychotherapy - in its most mediocre practice - can become an ongoing analytical fishing expedition between one's past, one's behavior, one's "issues", and an elusive discovery that will make a happy life coalesce from it all, life coaching can lack the finesse, depth, and education that a therapist brings to the game. For example, a life coach may help a client leave his old job and get a better one. But the underlying issue may remain. The client may have more constitutional issues around self-esteem, self-efficacy, or even self-sabotage that he carries from position to position. And, as a result, the same work-place themes and dissatisfaction reemerge; time and time again. It might be likened to the difference between managing an issue and changing one's circumstances - even if for the very better - without really healing what is core. A life coach who integrates NLP into their practice may use its world-famous five minute "phobia cure" successfully on a patient. But if another patient's phobia co-exists with PTSD, should that life coach even start fiddling in that area?

Both therapy and coaching have their rightful place. What concerns me is when they are thought of interchangeably by the client/patient/consumer. What concerns me is when a life coach who has paid three thousand dollars for a nine month program believes that he is a more effective version of the "spendy and laconic" therapist. And pitches himself that way, either through promotional material or in how they present their work in person. The reverse also applies. One look through the therapist referral website, PsychologyToday.com, shows that therapists without that nine month program can list "Coaching" as a therapeutic modality with the simple check of a box when setting up their profile. 

Part of the difficulty is that there has yet to be a single, globally respected (or, in the United States, even nationally respected) governing/licensing/overseeing body. What are the widely accepted - and expected! - best practices? What ongoing education should be mandated? Is it kosher for me to channel my "spirit guides" as part of a session? Can I sleep with a client one night and then guide them in leaving their marriage the next? What are the parameters? If a boundary is crossed, where does the client go? How am I held accountable to certain professional standards? 

The emerging specialty of life coaching is exciting...but also dangerous in a wild, wild west kind of way. When there's no sheriff - or town mayor! - to keep someone in check, it's a free for all; filled with a new breed of professionals who want to serve others with cutting-edge technologies on one end of town. And, on the other, fakers who graduated from a certificate-mill who shouldn't be let anywhere near sharp objects.

It's in that spirit that I feel Life Coaching would be well-served as a college major that fused the disciplines of psychology, philosophy, communications, and perhaps even spirituality. If a four-year degree were required, there could be a) greater standardization, b) training of greater quality and quantity, while c) not requiring a course of study as long or as intense as that needed to practice therapy in most U.S. states; a key incentive behind training to be a life coach in the first place. 

It would still be longer than the nine month program I alluded to. And a lot, lot longer than the "Become a life coach in a weekend!" ad that is even more common.

I Humble Myself

Every time I walk in, the greatest exercise I can do at the gym is to humble myself.

Within the telltale free-weights section of the club are men who are stronger, younger, or more handsome than me. I set it all aside as best as I can. And when I reach for a weight to lift, I prioritize my form above all else. What this means is that there are fellows curling 35 or 45 pounds dumbbells. Somewhere on the floor, you'll see me lifting 15 pounds. I humble myself before the weight. This gives me the latitude to do  the exercise correctly. This process has been a remarkable way of learning to set aside ego, the impulse to compare, and the need to compete. Rather than just talking big about self-determination, I am actively following my own path.

In all fairness, I do not mean to present an "either/or" strength training paradigm. It's not a matter of lifting a big weight or lifting the weight correctly. There is surely a middle ground to be had. It's not the murky gray of ambiguity or compromise. Rather, it is a shimmering graphite; the revered "moderation" of the Greeks. In this case, it takes the form of me choosing lighter exercise over no exercise, keeping a flexible and enjoyable routine,  and a patient progression of increased weight rather than a punishing "Biggest Loser" program.

One of the most remarkable aspects of lifting light weights is the strength that I derive from it; not just physically but in terms of my personal character. Physically, because I pace each movement with correct form, posture, and breath (when I remember), I am able to create a very satisfying burn and contraction. I am in excellent control of the weight and, therefore, find that I can target the primary muscle group very effectively. I'm not using swinging or momentum to lift the weight. I'm not lifting it to simply complete the rep and then quickly descending on the negative movement. And I don't "relax" my muscle at the end of the repetition. Because I maintain steady tension throughout, the process a pleasure of focus and efficacy.

Personally, this process has developed inner-strength because it requires me to define myself beyond how I rank in comparison to other men. Mind you, I'm not lifting these light weights to be a rebel; I wouldn't be humbling myself if I were in "rebel mode". I'm lifting them because they are the lower end of the weights I can lift at my current strength level. Nevertheless, that strength has grown slowly and steadily every time I exercise. And that's a key point; my non-egoic pride is in just showing up and doing my best. It makes it easy to choose a spot in front of the mirror, take up the space I need to do my work, and feel that I belong there; regardless of the number etched into the side of the weight.

For me, life is a journey in which my ego is challenged, debunked, and destroyed. This dynamic may be  necessary in order for an authentic self to emerge, rather than one based on pretense, insecurity, inherited values, or ancestral themes. Going to the gym is one way to develop an "internal bedrock" through the practice of balance. Although we are all born into bodies, I'm betting personal character must first take shape and solidify before we can really inhabit the world with clarity and ease.

PBS “Macbeth” With Patrick Stewart: Example Of What Pisses Off GOP

With House GOP’s still hungry to gut all funds for PBS, it was as interesting time to watch the network's version of “Macbeth” starring (“Sir”) Patrick Stewart. The production is an excellent example of why Republicans would want to sabotage the network and its programming.

Shakespeare’s play is rife with adult themes; those only hinted at in the text are brought to blossom in this modern interpretation…and then some. Macbeth and his Lady have a sensually charged relationship. Said hungers then choose power as a new conquest. They unite in murdering the king and placing Macbeth in his place. And that brings us to another adult theme; murder and violence.

In the PBS production, some of this is revealed symbolically - lots of blood stains on hands, face, and anywhere else - and some of it more graphic. Now, if this were a horror film or murder mystery along with the usual cheesy performances and expendable characters, the gore and loss of life would be unmoving par for the course. But because the world of director Rupert Goold has the weight of reality, characters (even immoral ones) that we are deeply invested in, and emotional dimension, the violence unsettles. Rather than Wile E. Coyote racing off the edge of a cliff, this feels like the father in Nebraska who inexplicably shoots his child. This brings up the third element that Republicans largely object to.

PBS’ “Macbeth” is a study in emotional illness. But when it's “Morning in America”, picture-perfect nuclear families sparkle the landscape, gays do not exist, rape never necessitates abortion, citizens acquiesce to the  "moral majority" of their priest-politicians and there is certainly no such thing as skyrocketing mental illness. And because there isn’t, there’s no need for universal healthcare to treat it.

Lastly, this “Great Performances” production did not come from one of the Big Media companies that can now donate unlimited monies to both parties while tightening their stranglehold on the market. One can rest assured that, had this been a FOX Entertainment vehicle - desexed of naughty parts, supercharged with thrilling car chases, and featuring  Johnny Knoxville as a more “Christianly” Macbeth - it would be coddled as wholesome, American entertainment.

So, there you have it. Sex, violence, illness, and decentralized media: four things that don’t exist in a GOP utopia. But lest we leave it at that, there is a fifth and far most powerful one.

Stewart and the rest of the exceptional cast play characters awash in immense moral ambiguity. We hate Macbeth for his tyranny. We empathize with him for his madness and see ourselves, all too clearly, in moral concessions made for short-term gain. For Macbeth, it was rulership over an entire country. For us, it may be ignoring a waiting car to sneak in on a good parking spot. But the seed of selfishness is the same, no matter how large one may let it grow. The fact that this is universal struggle undercuts any single person, group, or nation's assertion that they alone own the moral high-ground. When any political party deludes itself into thinking that it does anyway, they stand on the precipice of a cliff. The fall is always a long and ugly one.

Hence, Republicans are frequently dealt a seismic crack in the hot nucleus of their imaginary planet. Pitiful excuse making and denial follows in the wake when a representative has homosexual relations with a page, a president manufactures “evidence” to incite war, and a senator divorces his wife as she lay stricken in a hospital bed. We expect such bad behavior of Democrats for they are a study in moral ambiguity. But it is for their denial of the same that Republicans are the hypocrites.

Animated Video: Math As Propaganda

There are facts which can be used to engage is useful debate. Then there propaganda disguised as truth which is meant to forward a predetermined agenda. When done with a willingness to learn and possibly change, debate can be respectful, intelligent, and clarifying. It can be a constructive process that reveals areas of agreement upon which advances for the common good can be made.

When it comes to military spending, these are some possible subjects worth debating:

• How big a military do we need in order to maintain and increase national security?
• What would an effective barometer be to assess effective or wasteful military spending?
• Should the military's budget undergo cutbacks in tandem with those happening elsewhere; why or why not?

If we would have the courage to let truth usurp knee-jerk response or what we might like to believe, the answers could provide American citizens with a much firmer grasp of reality.

On the other hand, Cartoonist Mark Fiore provides a satiric example of propaganda used to promote opinion and agenda. Specifically, we're introduced to fake math as a tool in deceit's box of cheap tricks. Like all political manipulation, it is particularly vile when committed under the rouse of piety or patriotism.